Dolby Digital Live Encoding - Why do you want it?

[MonsterZero]

I'm personally trying to get a handle on this whole DDL encoding craze going on so I wanted to understand from the people who want it, exactly why they want it.

Dolby's own website on the benefits of DDL are here:
http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/dolby_live.html

Feature 1 I understand:
Uses a single digital connection

Great but that seems to me to come at a price.. In the case of the HDA Mystique for example they're taking a digital source, converting it to analog sending it to the DDL encoder, sending it out a digital out probably to any amp.. which has to convert the digital signal back to analog!

3 conversions from digital source to analog or digital amp (since a digital amp cannot send bitstream to a speaker)
of course if you just used analog cables.. you're at 1 conversion (albeit "messy!" and not Dolby Digital)

Please correct me if I'm wrong here...

Feature 2
Transforms all PC audio signals into a Dolby Digital signal

Here's where I don't know.. Will people find this feature useful? Examples of PC audio signals you would want to convert? What do you do with the then converted signal? Please let me know.

Feature 3
Optimized for low-latency interactive applications

That entire feature is just in defense of the conversion "No perceptible delay between video and audio in game play" Not really a feature in my mind...

Feature 4
Provides realistic 5.1-channel surround sound effects during interactive video gameplay

I don't understand how the sound effects would be anymore realistic than what they are from the source... Could someone explain this one?


What else am I missing? Are there other benefits to DDL encoding that aren't listed on their website? If so please let me know.

Thanks in advance for info.

 

[thomase]

I don't think there is a conversion to analog before DDL encoding so you should still only go through 1 DAC. However, Dolby Digital is a compressed format and DDL is even more lossy than normal Dolby Digital because of the real-time requirements (frequencies above 17Khz are cut off).

The only reasons for DDL are the convenience of a single digital connection, and the ability to use the DACs amp and speakers from a HT setup without lower quality soundcard DACs or signal degradation over an analog cable getting in the way. The tradeoff is compression. Also, Creative cards tend to have a better EAX implementation for games AND are the only cards supporting EAX 3/4 AND they don't support DDL.

Feature 4
Provides realistic 5.1-channel surround sound effects during interactive video gameplay

This meaningless marketing-speak ranks up there with the worst from Creative. Its a combined lossy compression and transport format for 5.1-channel audio. That is it.

People want it because they want to connect their PC to their HT system as if it were a high-definition set-top-box or DVD player.

The best of both worlds would be soundcards that support uncompressed multi-channel digital audio. HDMI is one such interface but a) I don't think many (if any) receivers support the audio part of this standard right now, and b) the connector standard combines audio AND video so it is unclear how this would be implemented for PCs where video and audio use separate connectors.

 

[Mister X]

It makes the orange DTS light on my receiver light up.

 

[Kristo]

wouldn't that be Dolby Digital.

Either that or your reciever is broken

 

[eastvillager]

They don't.

Most of them are confusing decoding with encoding.

 

[Droban]

With a home audio system, the difference between an audigy2zs and the x-mystique is very noticeable. The sound qualty is just better, so people with a higher end system should want DDL.

 

[SLee]

With a home audio system, the difference between an audigy2zs and the x-mystique is very noticeable. The sound qualty is just better, so people with a higher end system should want DDL.

A higher end system would not want DDL, which makes audio worse as it's lossy compression.

 

[Mister X]

wouldn't that be Dolby Digital.

Either that or your reciever is broken

Either that or you could understand the sarcasm.

 

[H-street]

A higher end system would not want DDL, which makes audio worse as it's lossy compression.

if a higher end system includes an audigy2 then count me out of wanting a higher end system..

when switching from my audigy2 + receiver to my HDA Mystique + receiver, you'll have a hard time convincing my ears that the audigy2 was better and the DDL is bad because its a lossy format..



now whether the issue here is that the Mystique is just better than the audigy2 is probably up for grabs, would the Mystique sound just as good using 6 analogue outputs as you where forced to with the audigy2 is yet to be heard, but for now i'm more than please with the switch.

 

[MonsterZero]

I don't think there is a conversion to analog before DDL encoding so you should still only go through 1 DAC. However, Dolby Digital is a compressed format and DDL is even more lossy than normal Dolby Digital because of the real-time requirements (frequencies above 17Khz are cut off).

A quick note here - when in Dolby Digital Live mode, the analog ouputs are disabled. This may give insight into how the system work, as it would seem reasonable that the analog signals are rerouted from the discrete channel outputs into the hardware encoder.

http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/x-mystique/page_2.shtml

I would think that as well.. but then I read that out of a review...

Thank you guys for the feedback, that's pretty much what i thought, I've just been seeing a lot of people throwing around DDL encoding like... it's some magic music powder that makes everything sound better.

And maybe the Mystique sounds better than an Audigy 2ZS going through DDL encoding.. that'd just mean it's a pretty badass card. I would say though that I'm sure it sounds better going through analog vs. digital out. (whether you notice or not I can't say, but compression vs. no compression is pretty obvious.)

 

[thomase]

Taking the fact that the analog outputs are disabled in DDL mode and jumping to the conclusion that the analog outputs are put through another ADC stage and sent to a hardware encoder makes absolutely no sense. It's more likely that the samples are never sent to the DAC in the first place when DDL is enabled.

 

[Deleted member 72990]

I guess you just have to try the Mystique to realize how much better it is.

To the author of this thread, if you're so convinced that the features of the card are not worth it, by all means, don't buy it. It seems you're pretty convinced that it's no good.

 

[MonsterZero]

I guess you just have to try the Mystique to realize how much better it is.

To the author of this thread, if you're so convinced that the features of the card are not worth it, by all means, don't buy it. It seems you're pretty convinced that it's no good.

Since you addressed me specifically I should point out that this thread isn't about the Mystique... in fact I only used it as an example. I also didn't speak about any "features" of the Mystique card because this thread is about DDL encoding and what it does and offers to people who buy cards/boards that support it.

I use an Audigy because of it's support for gaming.. gaming only.. I do not play music off my computer and I do not play movies off my computer.

Take it easy.

Also, about the signal not even hitting the DAC because it goes straight to the encoder I agree that would make the most sense, I was just pointing out what was said in the review and raising concern. I don't know if we'll ever be able to find out for sure.
Edit: I will also say I don't totally trust companies to make the most appropriate decision in these cases but to more likely go with whatever is easiest and cost effective.

 

[thomase]

In general, I think other cards with digital out (with or without DDL encoding) disable analog outputs when digital outputs are enabled.

Also, I'd imagine it would be easier and more cost-effective to avoid a digital-analog-digital conversion before encoding to DDL.

I think it is safe to assume no DAC stage in the soundcard when DDL is enabled. nvnews simply does not know what they are talking about, not unlike most other hardare review sites.

 

[H-street]

I use an Audigy because of it's support for gaming.. gaming only..

Not to side track this thread but..

this is definately one of those areas that i think creative has marketing has done well..

Thomase said in best in the X-fi thread

Does it bother anyone else that the perception of computer audio is so backwards that most people attribute the value of a particular audio solution not to the quality of the experience, but to what percentage of CPU is used (lower being better)? Its so bad that even Creative's marketing department is using this perception to market their new product to gamers. When we talk about video, everyone wants AA, pretty shaders, special effects, etc. When it comes to sound, the judgement of quality is binary - either you hear it or you don't.

when i had my audigy 2 i always figured i was getting the best out of my games because i had the audigy2, but when i plugged my new card i was hearing sounds in the game i had not heard before..

but i guess on the DDL topic the final point for me i guess would be this..

if you use a Receiver for your computer (whether it be gaming or music), DDL is the way to go. if not than there is no point for the DDL. In the end it is a preference.. this evening i may actually try and run the Mystique in analogue 6channel output and see if i can even tell the difference (bah now where did i stick those analogue cables)..

 

[westrock2000]

Have you played Xbox games that use the Dolby on the fly? Games like Halo 1 & 2, First To Fight, Sega GT2002. It makes a huge difference as far as immersion. The fidelity requirments are small, since your talking gunshots, voices, engines...stuff that doesn't require much bandwidth or absolute clarity (especially considering you don't have time to nitpick). Stuff that needs maximum bandwidth like music or something is going to be contained ready to go on its own medium. Currently there is no reason that you should worry about being able to encode stuff like SACD or DVD-A or even DTS music CD's or a regular Dolby Digital DVD. None of these formats are meant to be open ended to the average consumer.

Now as far as keeping everything digital, it lowers the chance of picking up interference (static) inside the PC and the connection to the decoder. Plus it makes a simplified connection.

 

[MonsterZero]

In general, I think other cards with digital out (with or without DDL encoding) disable analog outputs when digital outputs are enabled.

Also, I'd imagine it would be easier and more cost-effective to avoid a digital-analog-digital conversion before encoding to DDL.

I think it is safe to assume no DAC stage in the soundcard when DDL is enabled. nvnews simply does not know what they are talking about, not unlike most other hardare review sites.

I found a pdf for the cmedia chip and if I'm reading it right it looks like you're correct about it not even getting a signal to the DAC.
http://www.cmedia.com.tw/doc/CMI8768_plus_Datasheet Rev. 1.0.pdf

 

[MonsterZero]

Not to side track this thread but..

this is definately one of those areas that i think creative has marketing has done well..

Thomase said in best in the X-fi thread



when i had my audigy 2 i always figured i was getting the best out of my games because i had the audigy2, but when i plugged my new card i was hearing sounds in the game i had not heard before..

but i guess on the DDL topic the final point for me i guess would be this..

if you use a Receiver for your computer (whether it be gaming or music), DDL is the way to go. if not than there is no point for the DDL. In the end it is a preference.. this evening i may actually try and run the Mystique in analogue 6channel output and see if i can even tell the difference (bah now where did i stick those analogue cables)..

I agree CPU utilization is a bit of a joke, I think I said something about it in another thread in here.. even a 5% decrease in frame rate.. is comical with some of framerates you can get in systems these days, especially high-end ones.

That's interesting about hearing things in games not heard off an Audigy though... guess it depends on the games... personally I have a 7.1 system.. so to your comment about DDL being the only way to go if you have a reciever... well.. that would only give me 5.1. And everyone knows 7.1 is where it's at

 

[thomase]

Have you played Xbox games that use the Dolby on the fly? Games like Halo 1 & 2, First To Fight, Sega GT2002. It makes a huge difference as far as immersion.

Difference compared to what? There are no multi-channel analog outputs on the Xbox, so you have nothing to compare the Dolby Digital Live output to. Of course it will sound "better" than connecting the Xbox analog stereo out to your receiver, but at this point the content itself is entirely different (2 channels opposed to 5.1).

PCs DO have multi-channel analog ouputs that you can connect to a receiver. Comparing this to DDL is valid. However, the quality of the analog-to-receiver path depends on cabling, interference, possible ground loops, soundcard output level, etc. and it can vary from person to person even if they are using the same sound card AND receiver AND speakers. I'd bet that its possible to have the analog-to-receiver sound at least as good as DDL (in terms of SNR, etc) if you take every possible step to eliminate analog noise.

 

[thomase]

Not to side track this thread but..

this is definately one of those areas that i think creative has marketing has done well..

Thomase said in best in the X-fi thread

Regarding that comment, I was thinking more about the fact that I'm more interested in any improvements Creative has made to rendering interactive 3D audio environements through more EAX features, improved headphone HRTF, or whatever else. Another example is more support for geometry based 3D audio in game engines. I'd expect these kind of things to improve the overall experience and thus would be willing to pay a performance penalty for it.

However, people seem to have the tendency to equate interactive game audio with playback of recorded material (movies, music, etc.) in that there is no consideration given to the fact that creating an interactive 3D audio environment actually takes some processing power. More realistic modeling means even more processing power. There is a perception that interactive 3D audio cannot improve - a staionary target if you will - and thus should consume less and less percentage of CPU as time goes on.

When it comes to video, the consumer learned a long time ago that there is a fundamental difference between a pre-recorded/rendered non-interactive cutsceen and interactive game graphics. However, when it comes to audio, people still have this preconception of a "soundtrack" and they wind up erroneously making bad analogies between "movie" sounds and game sounds.

 

[Droban]

Ok the reason I wanted DDL is because I wanted digital sound in games.

DDL is MUCH better than using my audigy 2zs 6ch output. And I feel that it was a must to go along with my HT setup.

I use digital passthrough for music and have my receiver put it into PL II : Music, so it is simply PCM digital 2.0 output in that regard.

So the main reason I bought the x-mystique for DDL is games.

 

[Auric]

DDL was so important to me that I continued to use a nForce2-based motherboard until the X-Mystique came out, just so I could keep Soundstorm.

Why? Because all these supposed "gaming" sound cards (read: Audigy 2) have absolute shit for bass management. You don't notice this with PC speakers, because PC speakers have their own amps built-in and they usually do their own bass management. Home theater speakers do not, and only the most expensive high-end receivers are capable of doing bass management on 5.1 analog inputs, which were designed for DVD-Audio and SACD (which have a discrete LFE channel, and thus need no bass management).

The end result is that hooking an Audigy 2 up to your receiver will likely give you very little, if any bass. Other sound cards actually have decent bass management (like the Revo), but most come at the cost of CPU utilization. Of course, if you encode the signal into Dolby Digital, it now has a discrete LFE channel, and your receiver is more than happy to do bass management on anything digital.

 

[Deleted member 72990]

DDL was so important to me that I continued to use a nForce2-based motherboard until the X-Mystique came out, just so I could keep Soundstorm.

Why? Because all these supposed "gaming" sound cards (read: Audigy 2) have absolute shit for bass management. You don't notice this with PC speakers, because PC speakers have their own amps built-in and they usually do their own bass management. Home theater speakers do not, and only the most expensive high-end receivers are capable of doing bass management on 5.1 analog inputs, which were designed for DVD-Audio and SACD (which have a discrete LFE channel, and thus need no bass management).

The end result is that hooking an Audigy 2 up to your receiver will likely give you very little, if any bass. Other sound cards actually have decent bass management (like the Revo), but most come at the cost of CPU utilization. Of course, if you encode the signal into Dolby Digital, it now has a discrete LFE channel, and your receiver is more than happy to do bass management on anything digital.

I know exactly what you're talking about. You can turn on the bass management on the audigy to get bass to the sub, but overall, the whole sound spectrum on the audigy just doesnt sound very good. Sounds very thin.

 

[thomase]

I've always been a bit unclear on this issue. I know that the Audigy 2 for example has a discrete sub output. However, I have also read that you have to turn on bass redirection in order to get the Audigy 2 to send anything to that separate channel. It is necessary to turn this on to get bass to speaker systems with a discrete sub input. This would suggest that some speaker systems don't actually use the sub output an instead extract a sub channel on their own. If this is the case, I suppose I can understand that a typical receiver wouldn't necessary have the same ability to extract a bass channel in the analog domain, if the analog inputs are only really intended for content with a discrete LFE channel. What confuses me is if a PC speaker system's built-in bass management is satisfactory, why can the Audigy 2 not have a bass management implementation that is at least as good?

What I'm missing is an understanding of how Audigy 2 bass management works and why it is worst than other soundcards. Why not just sum up and normalize the output of all channels and send the result to the sub channel. Will the sub respond in an undesirable way to high-frequency components in the signal? If so, throw a low-pass filter on the output. Is this where Creative fails? If so, is the filter implemented in the analog or digital domain? Finally, how does digital bass management in a receiver work and why is it better? Its unclear to me why you would even need "bass management" (as I understand it to be extracting a LFE channel from content without a discrete LFE channel) in the digital domain because DD and DTS have discrete LFE channels.

 

[jebo_4jc]

^^^ That's a lot of questions. I'm no expert, but I do know this:
When I hooked my Audigy 1 up to my receiver using analog 6 channel connections, I got no bass. My assumption was that I wasn't using the right connections or something. I used 3 stereo mini to RCA plugs. 5 channel surround worked amazingly well, but I had no bass, as was indicated above. Now, 5.1 *computer* speakers use a stereo plug for the center channel, and my assumption was that one of the channels was for the center, and one of the channels was a LFE output, if you will. Apparently I was wrong. The only way I could get any bass was to ghetto rig up some connections that split the front left channel into the receiver's LFE input, and you can imagine how much that sucked.
These efforts inspired me to buy a soundstorm based SFF in order to get 5.1 channel dolby digital out (at the time, no DDL cards existed). However, the drawback to this is that non-Audigy cards only support EAX 2, and the "best" gaming sound is EAX 3 or 4. Now, in some games, I only get 2 channel sound because surround requires an EAX 3 card. That sucks. The fact that Creative has the gaming market so cornered makes me wish for a DDL Audigy (or X-Fi). As for music, however, I turn off DDL. I haven't played with it too much, but IMO music sounds best when the nvidia mixer is set to "5.1 speaker" but no DDL. My receiver does a better job of taking the 2 channel music and spreading it using PL2 music.

 

[jebo_4jc]

when i had my audigy 2 i always figured i was getting the best out of my games because i had the audigy2, but when i plugged my new card i was hearing sounds in the game i had not heard before.

I can't imagine that a modern game would sound better using EAX 2 than EAX 3 or 4 on the Audigy. What game are you talking about?

 

[MonsterZero]

The fact that Creative has the gaming market so cornered makes me wish for a DDL Audigy (or X-Fi). As for music, however, I turn off DDL. I haven't played with it too much, but IMO music sounds best when the nvidia mixer is set to "5.1 speaker" but no DDL. My receiver does a better job of taking the 2 channel music and spreading it using PL2 music.

I wholeheartedly agree it sucks Creative has some hold over audio in gaming... I actually bought a Revo with the intention of using it instead of the audigy in games not supporting EAX... but it seems like the few games I do play are in the newer EAX's so... it's still in the box =\

Bass management is something I hadn't though of before... thanks for mentioning it.

 

[Deleted member 72990]

I can't imagine that a modern game would sound better using EAX 2 than EAX 3 or 4 on the Audigy. What game are you talking about?

Well, the HDA that i have gives much more immersion into the game. I used to have the Audigy 2 ZS and it did not give me that immersion.

Let me give an example:

In Joint Ops, if i threw a grenade into the water and then turned around.... on the audigy i would just here a bang and a splash through the rear channels. With the HDA, if i do the same thing, i hear a loud rumble that actually sounds like a large amount of water being disturbed.

I guess it's hard to explain it, but im more impressed with the HDA than with the audigy. I just feel so much more drawn into the game now.

 

[jebo_4jc]

In Joint Ops, if i threw a grenade into the water and then turned around.... on the audigy i would just here a bang and a splash through the rear channels. With the HDA, if i do the same thing, i hear a loud rumble that actually sounds like a large amount of water being disturbed.

Interesting, I'm not sure what's causing that. It does look like JO is a non-EAX game, so I wouldn't think an Audigy would be a benefit, but I also wouldn't think it would sound worse, either.
Oh, if you're comparing 2 channel analog out from the audigy to digital out with the HDA, then yes, I'm sure it would sound better on the HDA.

 

[H-street]

I can't imagine that a modern game would sound better using EAX 2 than EAX 3 or 4 on the Audigy. What game are you talking about?

every game,

i'll use SWG (yes don't laugh) as an example..

in SWG i played for a few years now on my audigy2, when i plugged in my HDA Mystique i noticed 2 things right away..

1. i had bass, when i would get into a battle i would get all sorts of good low frequency bass sounds..

2. all of a sudden i was hearing the ambient sounds (birds,tree creeks etc).. i had never heard them before with my audigy2, it blew me away how much more immersive the game was.

3. Everything was so clear, it was amazing how clear the sounds where.. i would almost describe it when looking back at the audigy2 that it the audigy2 sounded muffled..


Other games i really noticed a difference include Battlefield 1942, the clarity of the vehicle sounds where amazing. Being near a Tiger tank for the first time with my Mystique was jaw dropping (imagine the saving private ryan scene where hte tiger comes over the embankment)

UT2k4 w/Red Orchestra

I can't really comment on Battlefield 2, as the audigy2 was removed from my system prior to me playing it, but i can tell you the sounds in it are amazing..

now keep in mind, a lot of the above may be due to the fact i use a receiver for all my gaming, and the audigy2 is just not good when using a receiver (as i am coming to learn)..

now using headphones or whatnot may remove a lot of the quality issues with the audigy2 (and then indeed make it a better solution for that person)

i am not at all trying to sell you on the DDL using this, this is just my honest experience when switching over to using the DDL using the HDA Mystique.. the DDL Feature was my main reason for getting the Mystique and it just turned out to be one of the best soundcard upgrades i've made yet, kindof like upgrading from my SB16 to the SBLive 5.1.

it should also be noted that EAX != surround sound.. EAX is a sound processing mechanism that adds sound processing, like occlusion effects, reverb etc..

this is actually a very good thread where i was asking the same thing

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=912936

i was always under the impression (due to creatives good marketing) that EAX = good surround sound gaming when in fact i'm coming to find out that isn't the case, good surround sound gaming is more dependent on the quality of the soundcard than the EAX's post processing.

 

[thomase]

When connecting analog outputs directly to a receiver, how does one manage the volume settings on the windows/soundcard control panel and the receiver itself? I'd imagine that the wrong combination can result in poor quality.

 

[Deleted member 72990]

Interesting, I'm not sure what's causing that. It does look like JO is a non-EAX game, so I wouldn't think an Audigy would be a benefit, but I also wouldn't think it would sound worse, either.
Oh, if you're comparing 2 channel analog out from the audigy to digital out with the HDA, then yes, I'm sure it would sound better on the HDA.

No, im comparing 6 channel analog on the audigy, as well as the 2 channel digital PCM.

The sound on the HDA sounds EXACTLY like the 2 channel PCM from the audigy (very good), except its 5.1 surround sound.

Since the sound on the HDA has the fidelity of the PCM from the audigy (which would be the more accurate sound), i would have to put my in the HDA for having the more accurate sound.

The PCM sound on the audigy sounded rich, full, and great, just like the HDA does. The only problem with PCM is that it is stereo. But here is an example of how the audigy lacks:

if you listen to a song through the analog outs on the audigy, it sounds thin and flaky, but if you then switch to the digital out on the audigy (which hasnt been altered by card), then it sounds good.

Take that great PCM-quailty sound. Now imagine the HDA doing that but in full surround sound.

 

[thomase]

So the question is why is the analog out to receiver so bad.

It could be that receiver's DACs are much better than the Audigy 2. It could be the sub-par Audigy 2 bass management results in less bass which leads to a perceptoion of thiness. There could be a large amount of analog noise and/or interference due to your cabling. How does playing with the volume on the soundcard and the receiver effect things? For example, low soundcard volume and high receiver volume vs. high soundcard volume and low receiver volume.

My point is that the analog signal has all the same information as the digital signal. In fact, it has even more information because of the lack of compression and >17KHz frequency cutoff. The problem though is that there are a lot more variables effecting analog quality (soundcard DACs, cables, receiver analog ciruitry, ground loops, etc.). It takes tweaking to get the best out of an analog setup. Whenever someone compares their analog setup to a digital one, its hard to get a grasp on how much tweaking they have done to get the best possible result. That being said, I recognize the benefits of DDL in terms of ease of setup and lack of analog tweaking required.

 

[Deleted member 72990]

So the question is why is the analog out to receiver so bad.

It could be that receiver's DACs are much better than the Audigy 2. It could be the sub-par Audigy 2 bass management results in less bass which leads to a perceptoion of thiness. There could be a large amount of analog noise and/or interference due to your cabling. How does playing with the volume on the soundcard and the receiver effect things? For example, low soundcard volume and high receiver volume vs. high soundcard volume and low receiver volume.

My point is that the analog signal has all the same information as the digital signal. In fact, it has even more information because of the lack of compression and >17KHz frequency cutoff. The problem though is that there are a lot more variables effecting analog quality (soundcard DACs, cables, receiver analog ciruitry, ground loops, etc.). It takes tweaking to get the best out of an analog setup. Whenever someone compares their analog setup to a digital one, its hard to get a grasp on how much tweaking they have done to get the best possible result. That being said, I recognize the benefits of DDL in terms of ease of setup and lack of analog tweaking required.

The volume control of the Audigy is the worst that is imagineable.

If you turn the bass slider up to about 60% or higher on the audigy, you get insane distortion from the subwoofer, even at low volume settings. I have a pretty powerful subwoofer that can go really loud with authority, so its not the subwoofers fault. The same thing happens if you put the master volume slider on the audigy higher than about 75%.

To compensate for that, i had to turn the volume on my receiver higher, but then it doesnt get too lound. +10 db on my receiver (the max it goes to) has the about the same volume as -25 db through the HDA. The HDA does not distort the signal when you make equalizer changes.

The first thing i noticed when i got the HDA card setup was an insane amount of clear bass, something that was sorely missing from the audigy, even with bass redirection turned on. On the audigy sound card, i always found myself trying to get the most bass out of it before it started to distort things. On the HDA, i found myself having to turn the bass to -5db to get it to balance out.

the ONLY problem i've ever had with the HDA was that in Joint Operations, there was about a 1/8th second delay from the video to the sound, but every other program i've used has not had that issue. But the HDA was still lightyears ahead of the audigy in joint operations. The audigy always caused sound to cut on after a couple minutes of play, and a restart of the game would fix that, only to happen again. The HDA never had that issue.

It's surprising that as new as the HDA Mystique is, it just seems to work better than audigy line which has been around since my grandfather was my age.

 

[jebo_4jc]

it should also be noted that EAX != surround sound.. EAX is a sound processing mechanism that adds sound processing, like occlusion effects, reverb etc..

this is actually a very good thread where i was asking the same thing

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=912936

i was always under the impression (due to creatives good marketing) that EAX = good surround sound gaming when in fact i'm coming to find out that isn't the case, good surround sound gaming is more dependent on the quality of the soundcard than the EAX's post processing.

If EAX != surround, that doesn't explain why, in Battle for Middle Earth, I get 2 channel sound from my soundstorm, and surround from my audigy.

 

[Deleted member 72990]

If EAX != surround, that doesn't explain why, in Battle for Middle Earth, I get 2 channel sound from my soundstorm, and surround from my audigy.

I get surround in all games. But then again its an HDA not a SoundStorm, so the DDL must be implemented differently.

 

[H-street]

If EAX != surround, that doesn't explain why, in Battle for Middle Earth, I get 2 channel sound from my soundstorm, and surround from my audigy.

sure it does, the audigy2 has CMSS built in which will up encode a stereo source to 5.1 (its in that thread i posted)..

its the same reason why when you play an MP3 the audigy2 will upencode it to play on all 5 speakers instead of just the stereo L & R.

EAX works in concert with Creative's 3D positioning technology (CMSS) to create surround sound effects. EAX itself is not a surround sound encoding technology like Dolby Digital or DTS.

 

[Deleted member 72990]

EAX works in concert with Creative's 3D positioning technology (CMSS) to create surround sound effects. EAX itself is not a surround sound encoding technology like Dolby Digital or DTS.

That's so true. EAX itself isnt surround sound. It's just adds effects to the sound, which i often find to be degrading.

 

[thekiefs]

I have to ask, especially for the people who gave really good examples, what kind of speaker setup do you have. Or did you buy something like a logitech z5500?

 

[Deleted member 72990]

I have to ask, especially for the people who gave really good examples, what kind of speaker setup do you have. Or did you buy something like a logitech z5500?

Look at my signature. It's a home theater receiver + speakers